Is Homosexuality Genetic? Ask the Ancient Greeks
tim jones
A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
This view, I think, is simply wrong.
To figure this out we don't have to dispute the controversial
scientific studies, which are inconclusive. We simply have to look at
a concrete historical example. Homosexuality was widespread in ancient
Greece and Rome. The Greeks even had an educational philosophy based
on pederasty. As K.J. Dover describes in his study of the subject,
older men would take teenage boys as sex partners, and in return for
sexual favors they would supposedly provide wisdom and knowledge.
Interestingly one character in Plato's Symposium protests this
practice. He thinks it is unfavor to the older men!
If these practices are genetic, why aren't homosexuality and pederasty
prevalent in Greece and Rome today? Has the gene pool changed that
much? These questions can be deepened by noting that for the ancients,
there was no question of being either heterosexual or homosexual. The
Greeks and Romans were both. In other words, Greek and Roman males
typically were married and had families, yet these same married men
also had sexual liaisons with younger boys.
I'm sure if someone in those days conducted a poll, the Greeks and
Romans would confidently proclaim their sexual practices "natural." If
you told the ancient Athenians that other societies weren't into
pederasty like they were, chances are they would laugh and say that
obviously pederasts in other cultures were concealing their true
inclinations. With the same cultural myopia, we think that since there
are homosexuals in our society, and since they clearly aren't
whimsically "choosing" to be homosexual, therefore homosexuality must
be biological and innate. But this is a non-sequitur, and history
suggests that it is not so.
Ray Fischer
>Dinesh D'Souza
>
>A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
>change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
>way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
>is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
>in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>
>This view, I think, is simply wrong.
Nobody gives a shit. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Enos Penvy
> Dinesh D'Souza
>
> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
> change their sexual orientation.
Good. They're catching up with reality.
> This can be read in more than one
> way.
It says what it says.
> But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
You've misused the term "genetically". Something that is biological
or innate does not necessarily have a genetic cause.
> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
> To figure this out we don't have to dispute the controversial
> scientific studies, which are inconclusive.
Even the Catholics, and even the "ex-gay" ministries, believe that the
orientation itself cannot be changed. A person is attracted to who he
is attracted to.
> We simply have to look at
> a concrete historical example. Homosexuality was widespread in ancient
> Greece and Rome. The Greeks even had an educational philosophy based
> on pederasty. As K.J. Dover describes in his study of the subject,
> older men would take teenage boys as sex partners, and in return for
> sexual favors they would supposedly provide wisdom and knowledge.
> Interestingly one character in Plato's Symposium protests this
> practice. He thinks it is unfavor to the older men!
>
> If these practices are genetic, why aren't homosexuality and pederasty
> prevalent in Greece and Rome today?
Pederasty has been made illegal. Homosexuality continues, but after
the arrival of Christianity, simply more hidden. That, of course, is
changing, and homosexuality is once again becoming more accepted
worldwide, as it was for most of the history of mankind.
> Has the gene pool changed that
> much?
No. What you seem to think is a reduction in the number of
homosexuals is the result of man-made laws, and punishments against
the behavior. This simply pushes the persecuted underground.
> These questions can be deepened by noting that for the ancients,
> there was no question of being either heterosexual or homosexual.
Correct. But that doesn't "deepen" the question. It shows that for
millennia, homosexuality was not considered to be a moral issue, and
civilizations thrived even so.
> The
> Greeks and Romans were both. In other words, Greek and Roman males
> typically were married and had families, yet these same married men
> also had sexual liaisons with younger boys.
Correct.
> I'm sure if someone in those days conducted a poll, the Greeks and
> Romans would confidently proclaim their sexual practices "natural."
They are "natural". Humans are not capable of "unnatural" acts.
> If
> you told the ancient Athenians that other societies weren't into
> pederasty like they were, chances are they would laugh and say that
> obviously pederasts in other cultures were concealing their true
> inclinations.
Most cultures at that time showed acceptance of homosexuality
activity.
> With the same cultural myopia, we think that since there
> are homosexuals in our society, and since they clearly aren't
> whimsically "choosing" to be homosexual, therefore homosexuality must
> be biological and innate.
It is likely biological.
> But this is a non-sequitur,
No. One of the "reasons" homophobes use for keeping rights from gays
is that they CHOOSE to be homosexual and are simply unwilling to
change to heterosexual inclinations.
> and history
> suggests that it is not so.
History suggests that, before the rise of Christianity, most cultures
accepted a preference for or dalliance in homosexual relationships,
much as today we accept a person's preference for baseball over
basketball. The ancients did not consider it to be a moral issue.
Josh
>
> Even the Catholics, and even the "ex-gay" ministries, believe that the
> orientation itself cannot be changed. A person is attracted to who he
> is attracted to.
Do have a citation for these claims?
Josh Rosenbluth
raven1
<timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Dinesh D'Souza
Pretty much sums it up right there.
thomas p.
"tim jones" <timjo...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:c3bb36f3-f560-4240...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
The fact that he is apparently well educated destroys any possible excuse
(besides insanity)
for the above distortions. He is quite simply a dishonest little man making
money by
catering to the ignorant.
LC
One trick troll "tim jones" <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3bb36f3-f560-4240...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
> change their sexual orientation.
This kook has exactly three trolls...errrr...posts to it's credit, and each
one obsesses over homosexuality.
Paging Dr. Freud!
James A. Donald
> If these practices are genetic, why aren't homosexuality and pederasty
> prevalent in Greece and Rome today? Has the gene pool changed that
> much?
Sexual characteristics are notoriously prone to rapid evolutionary
change.
Suppose that in the ancestral environment, pederasty was strongly
discouraged by lethal violence. Assume that in the more "civilized"
environment it was not. Then in the ancestral environment, there
would be only weak selection against an inclination towards pederasty,
in the "civilized" environment, strong selection.
> I'm sure if someone in those days conducted a poll, the Greeks and
> Romans would confidently proclaim their sexual practices "natural." If
> you told the ancient Athenians that other societies weren't into
> pederasty like they were, chances are they would laugh and say that
> obviously pederasts in other cultures were concealing their true
> inclinations.
Which they were, since most of their neighbors were apt to kill
pederasts.
Pat Magroyne
One Catholic example: 2006-NOV: Pastoral statements from American
bishops: "To the extent that a homosexual tendency or inclination is
not subject to one's free will, one is not morally culpable for that
tendency." http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rom5.htm
I don't know where I read about a number of ex-gay ministries
reversing course at least somewhat on the issue of homosexual
attraction vs. homosexual behavior, but Exodus International has
distanced itself somewhat (even though on their site I saw something
to the contrary). "Exodus describes change as 'attaining abstinence
from homosexual behaviors, lessening of homosexual temptations,
strengthening their sense of masculine or feminine identity,
correcting distorted styles of relating with members of the same and
opposite gender.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex-gay This
description of change is CLEARLY not the same as claiming that same-
sex ATTRACTION can be changed.
Peter Franks
> tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dinesh D'Souza
>>
>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>>
>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
>
Does nature count?
Wexford
I'd be cautious about making sweeping claims of the prevalence of any
particular practice based only on the surviving remnants of a few
ancient writers. Plato was hardly representative of the typical Greek
of his day. As for Romans, some were homosexual, some bi-sexual. There
is evidence that some Romans were violently homophobic as well. In
both societies poor and unproctected women and children could be
exploited, and slaves, who could be the majority of the population,
were always available. The truth is, we don't know what common
practices were, who enjoyed what or how much of anything went on. We
do know that certain people did certain things. Some ancient writing
alludes to homosexual practices. The Spartans -- who were, if
anything,utterly weird -- had their own odd sexual practices.
Heterosexuality gets a great deal of play in the surviving texts and
was certainly celebrated and prevalent throughout the Ancient world,
forming the substance of myths and the basis of romantic legend.
However many homosexuals populated ancient Greece and Rome, there were
enough heteros to keep the population expanding, and to support a
large number of brothels, where some prostitutes and concubines
demanded enormous sums for their favors. What conclusion can you draw
from this? None. What relevance has it to today's world?
little.
Ric Locke
The relevance, if any, lies in trying distinguish between the civil
rights aspect (which is real and valid) and the linguistic imperialism
(which is pure power-grab, and is being resisted as such). The "gay
rights" advocates try to steer everything into the first channel; it
doesn't work, because it can't work.
There are a near-infinite number of ways in which modern society differs
from the ancient ones. At the top of that list, we no longer keep slaves
except in a few backward pockets, mainly Islamic but with a few criminal
organizations. However, in every case we can point to societies in the
past that had the same or similar customs.
This is not the case with "gay marriage". Even the Sacred Band of
Thebes, celebrated in homosexual mythology, did not refer to the
domestic arrangements of its members as "marriage". Their chroniclers
claimed it was the /equivalent/ of marriage, but in the few cases where
a member of the Band got married, he left the Band and married a woman.
Homosexuals ought to have the same rights as anybody else, and we were
on track to accomplish that right up until Gavin Newsom pulled his
stupid publicity stunt. It is apocraphylly noted that the Legislature of
Mississippi once passed a law requiring pi to be exactly three. Trying
to establish "gay marriage" -- changing the definition of a word -- by
legislative or judicial fiat is equally stupid, and people react to
that. They will continue to do so.
Regards,
Ric
thomas p.
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hekp20$sit$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
Josh
>
> Homosexuals ought to have the same rights as anybody else, and we were
> on track to accomplish that right up until Gavin Newsom pulled his
> stupid publicity stunt. It is apocraphylly noted that the Legislature of
> Mississippi once passed a law requiring pi to be exactly three. Trying
> to establish "gay marriage" -- changing the definition of a word -- by
> legislative or judicial fiat is equally stupid, and people react to
> that. They will continue to do so.
I disagree that permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage
changes the definition of the word marriage because I reject the idea
that marriage is defined by who is eligible. Instead, marriage ought to
be defined by its purpose in society.
Josh Rosenbluth
thomas p.
"Ric Locke" <warric...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:1894f1nautkzh$.11w8s6xb14vut$.dlg@40tude.net...
If the law says that pi equals 3 exactly, nothing will change; using 3 in
calculations will not work.
The law did not create pi. It did create civil marriage. See the
difference?
Josh
He's made it before, and he expresses it in a hard-to-swallow way. But,
basically it comes to a Darwinian argument that natural selection should
act against homosexuality because of procreation.
My guess is one of three things are true: 1) there is another reason
for selecting homosexuality that counters the procreation effect, 2) the
model of natural selection requires adjustments to explain why
homosexuality continues, or 3) we need to wait much, much longer to see
homosexuality die out.
Josh Rosenbluth
David Friedman
wrote:
I don't think your third is plausible without something more.
Characteristics with a much smaller effect on inclusive fitness than
homosexuality appears to have (supposing your 1 is wrong) have been
selected for or against in much shorter periods of time.
You should probably include as 1a: Homosexuality is a (reproductively)
undesirable side effect of some desirable characteristic, something
analogous to the genetics of sickle cell. And perhaps 4: Homosexuality
is a (reproductively) undesirable effect of some way in which human
metabolism can go wrong, not easily corrected by evolution (analogous to
cancer)--although perhaps that counts as 3a.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Friedman
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If the law says that pi equals 3 exactly, nothing will change; using 3 in
> calculations will not work.
> The law did not create pi. It did create civil marriage. See the
> difference?
Unless you are restricting "civil marriage" to a legal status, that
isn't true. Marriage is a very common human institution across a wide
variety of cultures, so it isn't plausible to see it as a creation of
the law, any more than the relation between parent and child is. In both
cases the law makes rules to apply to a preexisting institution.
Peter Franks
Yes, I do.
Homosexuality is contrary to natural design. I presume that supersedes
the biology argument.
Peter Franks
> thomas p. wrote:
>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>> news:hekp20$sit$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dinesh D'Souza
>>>>>
>>>>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
>>>>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
>>>>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
>>>>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
>>>>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>>>>>
>>>>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
>>>> Nobody gives a ***. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
>>> Does nature count?
>>
>> Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
>
> He's made it before, and he expresses it in a hard-to-swallow way. But,
> basically it comes to a Darwinian argument that natural selection should
> act against homosexuality because of procreation.
Why is it hard to swallow? Is it not a fact?
> My guess is one of three things are true: 1) there is another reason
> for selecting homosexuality that counters the procreation effect,
Why does nature 'select' any defect?
> 2) the
> model of natural selection requires adjustments to explain why
> homosexuality continues, or
Perhaps it isn't 'natural'.
> 3) we need to wait much, much longer to see
> homosexuality die out.
Why?
Josh
Here is one idea: the female relatives of gays reproduce at a higher
rate than the female relatives of straights. So, the same "defect" that
harms the propagation of the species by creating gays, helps the
propagation by creating more fertile women.
http://www.slate.com/id/2194232/
>> 2) the model of natural selection requires adjustments to explain why
>> homosexuality continues, or
>
> Perhaps it isn't 'natural'.
>
>> 3) we need to wait much, much longer to see homosexuality die out.
>
> Why?
Because if Natural Selection predicts that homosexuality will die out,
then it better eventually die out or something in the model is wrong.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
OK, we've got 4 possibilities.
In regard to the likelihood that homosexuality is in part determined by
environmental factors, does Natural Selection predict these factors will
also die out when they produce an undesirable effect. Or is Natural
Selection limited only to genetics? If it is the latter, is a 5th
possibility that environmental factors overwhelm the genetic ones in
keeping homosexuality alive?
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
> In article <4b0e9e8d$0$36570$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> If the law says that pi equals 3 exactly, nothing will change; using 3 in
>> calculations will not work.
>> The law did not create pi. It did create civil marriage. See the
>> difference?
>
> Unless you are restricting "civil marriage" to a legal status, that
> isn't true. Marriage is a very common human institution across a wide
> variety of cultures, so it isn't plausible to see it as a creation of
> the law, any more than the relation between parent and child is. In both
> cases the law makes rules to apply to a preexisting institution.
I concur. But is marriage (apart from the law) defined by who is
eligible, or rather what its purpose is? If it is the latter, then
during fairly recent times when the links between procreation as a
necessary condition for marriage have been lost (having nothing to do
with the appearance gayness as an identity), it would seem same-sex
marriages do not change the meaning of marriage.
Josh Rosenbluth
Ray Fischer
>Josh wrote:
>> thomas p. wrote:
>>> "Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> skrev i meddelelsen
>>> news:hekp20$sit$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dinesh D'Souza
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
>>>>>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
>>>>>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
>>>>>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
>>>>>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
>>>>> Nobody gives a ***. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
>>>> Does nature count?
>>>
>>> Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
>>
>> He's made it before, and he expresses it in a hard-to-swallow way. But,
>> basically it comes to a Darwinian argument that natural selection should
>> act against homosexuality because of procreation.
>
>Why is it hard to swallow? Is it not a fact?
It is not a fact. There are some interesting hypotheses which
homosexuality is so common, and not just in humans. For example:
younger male siblings tend to be homosexual more often, and a possible
reason is that they provide support for their nephews/nieces while not
competing for adults females.
>> My guess is one of three things are true: 1) there is another reason
>> for selecting homosexuality that counters the procreation effect,
>
>Why does nature 'select' any defect?
Assuming the conclusion. In fact you have not shown that it is a
defect. Indeed, the very notion harks back to the eugenecists who
believe that they were able to decide which biological attributes were
good and which were not.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Fred
news:c3bb36f3-f560-4240...@p28g2000vbi.googlegroups.com
tim jones <timjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dinesh D'Souza
If homosexuality was genetic, it should have died out after one
generation, unless most homosexuals act against their own principles and
breed (with members of the opposite sex).
David Friedman
Fred <nob...@invalid.com> wrote:
1. It isn't an issue of principle but of preference.
2. The argument assumes a single gene, dominant, characteristic. If the
characteristic is recessive, then individuals carrying only one copy
don't exhibit it, do breed, and sometimes two of them produce offspring
with two copies to exhibit the characteristic. If the one copy version
provides some advantage, as in the case of the sickle cell gene, the
reproductive gain form that will at some frequency balance the
reproductive loss from the homozygous version not reproducing.
Ric Locke
You may continue to assert that until you are blue in the face and
exhausted from the effort. It will remain untrue.
"Marriage" is an arrangement composed of male(s) and female(s). That is
what the word has meant since there was a word, and the concept existed
before there were words for it. Dragging the red herring of "civil"
(i.e., Government) into it is a way of attempting to confuse the issue
that doesn't work.
"Civil unions" -- a structure equivalent to marriage, which could then
have easily been retrofitted to heterosexual couples so far as legal
rights are concerned, leaving "marriage" as a cultural and religious
concept -- were well on their way to reality, with even the grudging
acceptance of the sort of snake-handling Christian sects I have almost
as much contempt for as you do. Then "gays" decided that "marriage" was
the only word that they would allow to apply to the situation. It
doesn't work, it won't work, and any place you allow it to come to any
sort of societal consent -- whether voting or otherwise -- it will
continue to get shot down.
You overreached. You simply don't have the power to compel pi to be
three, and you won't get it, and in attempting to establish it you've
moved yourselves backward from a civil rights standpoint.
Regards,
Ric
Ray Fischer
>If homosexuality was genetic, it should have died out after one
>generation,
Why?
> unless most homosexuals act against their own principles and
>breed (with members of the opposite sex).
Homosexual share genes with other people. If the trait impoves the
survivability of nieces and nephews then the trait will survive.
Don't assume that your ignorance justifies your hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ric Locke
Don't pat yourself on the back so hard. It strains your arm muscles, and
people will ridicule you.
Regards,
Ric
James A. Donald
> I concur. But is marriage (apart from the law) defined by who is
> eligible, or rather what its purpose is?
If the law attempts to change what marriage is, the actual effect will
be that the state derecognizes marriage, or even renders it illegal,
much as the effect of controlling food prices is apt to be forbidding
the purchase or sale of food. Indeed the present situation, where a
male who gets married exposes himself to enormous legal penalties
regardless of his own good conduct is already a substantial step
towards illegalizing marriage.
James A. Donald
> 2. The argument assumes a single gene, dominant,
> characteristic. If the characteristic is recessive,
> then individuals carrying only one copy don't exhibit
> it, do breed, and sometimes two of them produce
> offspring with two copies to exhibit the
> characteristic. If the one copy version provides some
> advantage, as in the case of the sickle cell gene, the
> reproductive gain form that will at some frequency
> balance the reproductive loss from the homozygous
> version not reproducing.
Assume there are genes for femininity and masculinity
that are not sex linked, though they should be. Because
the Y chromosome is degenerate, this will be the case -
the linkages are failing because of the Muller ratchet
on the Y chromosome.
Then a gene for desirable female characteristics is
likely to reduce reproductive success in a male,
possibly by making him homosexual, while the same gene
increases reproductive success in a female.
On this theory, the female relatives of homosexuals
should have greater reproductive success. I have heard
that this has been observed to be the case, but cannot
give a citation.
If the known defects with the Y chromosome could be
fixed, it is possible that all men would be more manly,
and all women more feminine. Perhaps homosexuality is just one
manifestation of this known genetic problem - that the
genetic basis of sex determination is becoming
disfunctional in mammals, having been degenerating ever
since we went XY.
David Friedman
wrote:
> David Friedman wrote:
> > In article <4b0e9e8d$0$36570$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> > "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> If the law says that pi equals 3 exactly, nothing will change; using 3 in
> >> calculations will not work.
> >> The law did not create pi. It did create civil marriage. See the
> >> difference?
> >
> > Unless you are restricting "civil marriage" to a legal status, that
> > isn't true. Marriage is a very common human institution across a wide
> > variety of cultures, so it isn't plausible to see it as a creation of
> > the law, any more than the relation between parent and child is. In both
> > cases the law makes rules to apply to a preexisting institution.
>
> I concur. But is marriage (apart from the law) defined by who is
> eligible, or rather what its purpose is?
Neither, I would think. It's a particular sort of partnership for any of
a variety of somewhat related purposes. The details of what sort of
partnership and who can form vary by custom, and would even if the law
played no role.
> If it is the latter, then
> during fairly recent times when the links between procreation as a
> necessary condition for marriage have been lost (having nothing to do
> with the appearance gayness as an identity), it would seem same-sex
> marriages do not change the meaning of marriage.
I'm not sure what you mean by "the meaning of marriage." The institution
of marriage will have different meanings to different people. Some of
those are consistent with same sex marriage, some not.
In my view, the problem with the whole issue of same sex marriage is
that each side is trying to force the other to accept its symbolism, its
view of what "A and B are married to each other" means.
For a more detailed discussion, see an old post on my blog:
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2005/12/gay-marriage-both-sides-are-wr
ong.html
David Friedman
wrote:
> > You should probably include as 1a: Homosexuality is a (reproductively)
> > undesirable side effect of some desirable characteristic, something
> > analogous to the genetics of sickle cell. And perhaps 4: Homosexuality
> > is a (reproductively) undesirable effect of some way in which human
> > metabolism can go wrong, not easily corrected by evolution (analogous to
> > cancer)--although perhaps that counts as 3a.
>
> OK, we've got 4 possibilities.
>
> In regard to the likelihood that homosexuality is in part determined by
> environmental factors,
This is unclear, at least to me. Are you distinguishing between
homosexual tastes and homosexual acts? I think it's obvious that
environmental factors affect the latter, in both directions. In an
environment where homosexual acts are severely punished, they will be
less common. In an environment where heterosexual relations are very
difficult to arrange--a same sex prison, for instance--we would expect
homosexual acts to be more common.
> does Natural Selection predict these factors will
> also die out when they produce an undesirable effect.
No.
> Or is Natural
> Selection limited only to genetics?
As the term is usually used, it is. One can make analogous arguments for
other things, but they aren't really the same. For one thing, societies
die or "reproduce" much more slowly than individuals do.
> If it is the latter, is a 5th
> possibility that environmental factors overwhelm the genetic ones in
> keeping homosexuality alive?
Are you imagining a changed environment? If you hold the environment
fixed for long enough, you would expect evolution to eliminate
characteristics that, in that environment, reduced extended reproductive
success.
Josh
I refer to its meaning in modern, Western society.
> In my view, the problem with the whole issue of same sex marriage is
> that each side is trying to force the other to accept its symbolism, its
> view of what "A and B are married to each other" means.
>
> For a more detailed discussion, see an old post on my blog:
>
> http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2005/12/gay-marriage-both-sides-are-wr
> ong.html
The symbolism in question is not just religious. It's whether civil
society recognizes same-sex relationships as being on par with, or
inferior to opposite-sex ones. Getting the word "marriage" out of
government, but using some new words to describe both types of
relationships, results in them being symbolically on-par.
Like it or not, you have to take sides (and you did).
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh
> In article <hemq0j$kpi$1...@josh.motzarella.org>, Josh <us...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> You should probably include as 1a: Homosexuality is a (reproductively)
>>> undesirable side effect of some desirable characteristic, something
>>> analogous to the genetics of sickle cell. And perhaps 4: Homosexuality
>>> is a (reproductively) undesirable effect of some way in which human
>>> metabolism can go wrong, not easily corrected by evolution (analogous to
>>> cancer)--although perhaps that counts as 3a.
>> OK, we've got 4 possibilities.
>>
>> In regard to the likelihood that homosexuality is in part determined by
>> environmental factors,
>
> This is unclear, at least to me. Are you distinguishing between
> homosexual tastes and homosexual acts?
I refer to desire, not behavior.
> I think it's obvious that
> environmental factors affect the latter, in both directions. In an
> environment where homosexual acts are severely punished, they will be
> less common. In an environment where heterosexual relations are very
> difficult to arrange--a same sex prison, for instance--we would expect
> homosexual acts to be more common.
>
>> does Natural Selection predict these factors will
>> also die out when they produce an undesirable effect.
>
> No.
>
>> Or is Natural
>> Selection limited only to genetics?
>
> As the term is usually used, it is. One can make analogous arguments for
> other things, but they aren't really the same. For one thing, societies
> die or "reproduce" much more slowly than individuals do.
>
>> If it is the latter, is a 5th
>> possibility that environmental factors overwhelm the genetic ones in
>> keeping homosexuality alive?
>
> Are you imagining a changed environment? If you hold the environment
> fixed for long enough, you would expect evolution to eliminate
> characteristics that, in that environment, reduced extended reproductive
> success.
I think you are saying that Natural Selection will alter genetics so the
undesirable effect is no longer observed in the fixed environment. Is
it possible that Natural Selection is sometimes unable to do so?
Josh Rosenbluth
thomas p.
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:s1cug55hs6akr3k8k...@4ax.com...
Since it is the state that created civil marriage in the first place, it can
and does
define and alter what civil marriage is.
>
>
thomas p.
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:ddfr-E6C8BA.2...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com...
Nobody is being forced to accept anything. It is purely a legal matter
determing who
can and cannot enter into a particular kind of contract called marriage.
Since this applies
only to civil marriage and requires nobody to approve or to participate,
where is the "force"?
Josh
There isn't force on any individual. But there is force in that society
as a whole is taking a stance even though a minority disapprove.
Josh Rosenbluth
Ric Locke
Bull.
Government == force. We have established a lot of procedures for
covering it up and rendering it less obvious, thus losing the
fundamental point: Government is, ultimately, goons with guns.
Substitute "goons with guns" for "the Law" and you have not changed the
meaning in any way -- but the argument looks different, doesn't it?
Regards,
Ric
thomas p.
"Josh" <us...@nowhere.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:heorlh$glh$3...@josh.motzarella.org...
I ask again, who is being forced to do anything to approve of anything?
Has, for example, the Catholic Church been forced to approve of divorce
since
divorce and remarriage are both legal? As far as I know the Church still
disapproves
still insists that state granted divorce does not end a marriage.
thomas p.
"Ric Locke" <warric...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:11eqmfjglbnmg$.i79obxcxchnk$.dlg@40tude.net...
Argument by hyperbole. Remove the law and the Constitutional state and
replace it with "goons with guns"; you will soon notice the difference.
Josh
The Catholic Church is forced to accept that the state approves of
something they disapprove of. Sure, it happens routinely, and it is
acceptable and appropriate. But, it is a form of force all the same.
Josh Rosenbluth
Pat Magroyne
Of course it is. Look at cystic fibrosis as an example.
It's also possible that homosexuality is not the horribly awful thing
that some make it out to be. If that's the case, there'd be no reason
for natural selection to rid the animal world of it.
David Friedman
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In my view, the problem with the whole issue of same sex marriage is
> > that each side is trying to force the other to accept its symbolism, its
> > view of what "A and B are married to each other" means.
>
> Nobody is being forced to accept anything. It is purely a legal matter
> determing who
> can and cannot enter into a particular kind of contract called marriage.
> Since this applies
> only to civil marriage and requires nobody to approve or to participate,
> where is the "force"?
My point was about the insistence on gay marriage, rather than only gay
civil unions. That is a controversy over what the contract is to be
called, with each side trying to insist on the other following their
preferred usage.
David Friedman
wrote:
> > Are you imagining a changed environment? If you hold the environment
> > fixed for long enough, you would expect evolution to eliminate
> > characteristics that, in that environment, reduced extended reproductive
> > success.
>
> I think you are saying that Natural Selection will alter genetics so the
> undesirable effect is no longer observed in the fixed environment. Is
> it possible that Natural Selection is sometimes unable to do so?
Yes. It would be an advantage to humans to be immune to a wide variety
of illnesses, from the common cold on up. Pretty clearly, evolution has
not yet managed to alter genetics in a way that produces that result--in
that case largely because evolution is also playing on the other side of
the game, and disease organisms, having much shorter generations than
humans, can evolve much faster.
But the other point is that, if our environment has changed radically in
the recent past--say the past thousand years--we will be mostly adapted
to the old and different environment, so may well have heritable
characteristics poorly adapted to the new.
David Friedman
<0618d44e-3023-4405...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Pat Magroyne <patma...@null.net> wrote:
> It's also possible that homosexuality is not the horribly awful thing
> that some make it out to be. If that's the case, there'd be no reason
> for natural selection to rid the animal world of it.
I'm not sure whether you are entirely missing the argument, or making a
legitimate point elliptically.
"Horribly awful," in this case, has nothing to do with whether humans
(or God, if there is one) disapprove of homosexuality, whether it is
moral or immoral, or anything of the sort. What's horribly awful about
homosexuality in the context of evolution is that it makes one less
likely to have children, hence tends to reduce, over time, the frequency
of the genes that cause it.
To argue that it isn't horribly awful in that sense, you need to offer
some balancing effect, some way that homosexual genes increase
reproductive success to balance the obvious way in which they decrease
it. It's possible that that was your point, but if so it was
sufficiently elliptical to make its existence uncertain.
David Friedman
wrote:
> The symbolism in question is not just religious. It's whether civil
> society recognizes same-sex relationships as being on par with, or
> inferior to opposite-sex ones. Getting the word "marriage" out of
> government, but using some new words to describe both types of
> relationships, results in them being symbolically on-par.
>
> Like it or not, you have to take sides (and you did).
I don't think so. I was arguing for leaving the symbolism to individual
choice, with people who regard same sex unions as marriages free to
refer to them accordingly, those who don't free not to, and the
government making no attempt to put a thumb on either pan of the scale.
Pat Magroyne
wrote:
> In article
> <0618d44e-3023-4405-8b3e-30fa3de68...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
>
> > It's also possible that homosexuality is not the horribly awful thing
> > that some make it out to be. If that's the case, there'd be no reason
> > for natural selection to rid the animal world of it.
>
> I'm not sure whether you are entirely missing the argument, or making a
> legitimate point elliptically.
Well, some interpret the natural selection theory to mean that
anything that doesn't enhance one's chances of reproducing would be
"selected" out of the gene pool. This is simply not the case.
> "Horribly awful," in this case, has nothing to do with whether humans
> (or God, if there is one) disapprove of homosexuality, whether it is
> moral or immoral, or anything of the sort. What's horribly awful about
> homosexuality in the context of evolution is that it makes one less
> likely to have children,
Actually, historically, that wasn't the case. Cultures expected
homosexuals to also reproduce.
It's short-sighted to imply that only those who reproduce directly are
helpful to the human species.
> hence tends to reduce, over time, the frequency
> of the genes that cause it.
Cf. cystic fibrosis. It's useless in the scheme of things, always
causes premature death, and those who suffer it don't reproduce.
> To argue that it isn't horribly awful in that sense, you need to offer
> some balancing effect, some way that homosexual genes increase
> reproductive success to balance the obvious way in which they decrease
> it.
There's the "gay uncle" theory, for one. There is also lots of proof
that some who don't reproduce can still be beneficial to mankind
overall.
Pat Magroyne
wrote:
> In article <4b0fecf7$0$36577$edfad...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In my view, the problem with the whole issue of same sex marriage is
> > > that each side is trying to force the other to accept its symbolism, its
> > > view of what "A and B are married to each other" means.
>
> > Nobody is being forced to accept anything. It is purely a legal matter
> > determing who
> > can and cannot enter into a particular kind of contract called marriage.
> > Since this applies
> > only to civil marriage and requires nobody to approve or to participate,
> > where is the "force"?
>
> My point was about the insistence on gay marriage, rather than only gay
> civil unions. That is a controversy over what the contract is to be
> called, with each side trying to insist on the other following their
> preferred usage.
It has to be "marriage" in order to be recognized in, for example,
Israel, and other places that recognize same-sex marriage contracts.
David Friedman
<e6568e98-e57c-4407...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Pat Magroyne <patma...@null.net> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 5:37�pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <0618d44e-3023-4405-8b3e-30fa3de68...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> > �Pat Magroyne <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
> >
> > > It's also possible that homosexuality is not the horribly awful thing
> > > that some make it out to be. �If that's the case, there'd be no reason
> > > for natural selection to rid the animal world of it.
> >
> > I'm not sure whether you are entirely missing the argument, or making a
> > legitimate point elliptically.
>
> Well, some interpret the natural selection theory to mean that
> anything that doesn't enhance one's chances of reproducing would be
> "selected" out of the gene pool. This is simply not the case.
Anything heritable that reduces extended reproductive success gets
selected out--the frequency of the relevant genes declines over time.
> > "Horribly awful," in this case, has nothing to do with whether humans
> > (or God, if there is one) disapprove of homosexuality, whether it is
> > moral or immoral, or anything of the sort. What's horribly awful about
> > homosexuality in the context of evolution is that it makes one less
> > likely to have children,
>
> Actually, historically, that wasn't the case. Cultures expected
> homosexuals to also reproduce.
One of the mechanisms that gets people to reproduce, although not the
only one, is heterosexual lust. Eliminate that and one would expect to
get less reproduction, although not none.
...
> > To argue that it isn't horribly awful in that sense, you need to offer
> > some balancing effect, some way that homosexual genes increase
> > reproductive success to balance the obvious way in which they decrease
> > it.
>
> There's the "gay uncle" theory, for one. There is also lots of proof
> that some who don't reproduce can still be beneficial to mankind
> overall.
Might be true, but that's irrelevant to whether the characteristic is
selected for or against by evolution.
Pat Magroyne
wrote:
> In article
> <e6568e98-e57c-4407-b5c3-9b1910a2c...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,
Well, since homosexuality isn't declining, I'm not quite sure what
your point is.
David Friedman
<a1e1ddfd-d0f7-4538...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Pat Magroyne <patma...@null.net> wrote:
My point was mainly that some of what you said was wrong.
The fact that homosexuality continues to exist is an interesting puzzle.
To understand that puzzle, and perhaps solve it, one first has to see
why one would expect it not to.
Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:
> In article <heolkp$h7...@josh.motzarella.org>, Josh <u...@nowhere.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The symbolism in question is not just religious. It's whether civil
> > society recognizes same-sex relationships as being on par with, or
> > inferior to opposite-sex ones. Getting the word "marriage" out of
> > government, but using some new words to describe both types of
> > relationships, results in them being symbolically on-par.
>
> > Like it or not, you have to take sides (and you did).
>
> I don't think so. I was arguing for leaving the symbolism to individual
> choice, with people who regard same sex unions as marriages free to
> refer to them accordingly, those who don't free not to, and the
> government making no attempt to put a thumb on either pan of the scale.
You missed my point. When the government uses the same word to
describe opposite-sex and same-sex relationships, they have put a
thumb on the scale. It makes no difference that the word chosen was
not "marriage".
Josh Rosenbluth
Info Junkie
> Ric Locke wrote:
>
> > Homosexuals ought to have the same rights as anybody else, and we were
> > on track to accomplish that right up until Gavin Newsom pulled his
> > stupid publicity stunt. It is apocraphylly noted that the Legislature of
> > Mississippi once passed a law requiring pi to be exactly three. Trying
> > to establish "gay marriage" -- changing the definition of a word -- by
> > legislative or judicial fiat is equally stupid, and people react to
> > that. They will continue to do so.
>
> I disagree that permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage
> changes the definition of the word marriage because I reject the idea
> that marriage is defined by who is eligible. Instead, marriage ought to
> be defined by its purpose in society.
Hmmm. You posted, "...I reject the idea that (civil) marriage is
defined by who is eligible"...and yet you've previously posted, "It is
true that civil marriage and its benefits are not a Due Process right,
that is the state can deny civil marriage or its benefits to all
people." Message-ID:
<1164578027.126159.168...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
As you well know, in a multitude of ways, the majority of society has
stated the definition of marriage AND its' "purpose in society". You,
like the the majority of pro-homosexual advocates, refuse to accept
their definition of marriage and how its purpose has been defined, by
well established law and custom, to provide benefits to all people
within their society....hence the reason pro-homosexual advocates
perform an end-run-around to the Courts.
"...The Equal Protection Clause "is not a license for courts to judge
the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters’] choices."
(http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)
"Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_sc/759341MAJ&invol=4
Josh Rosenbluth
Why does the state celebrate the marriages of the elderly and
infertile?
Josh Rosenbluth
thomas p.
It also rather misses the point that the government has no choice but to be
involved,
since the issue is who may or may not contract a legal agreement (civil
marriage).
Ray Fischer
>On Nov 26, 10:24 am, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> Ric Locke wrote:
>>
>> > Homosexuals ought to have the same rights as anybody else, and we were
>> > on track to accomplish that right up until Gavin Newsom pulled his
>> > stupid publicity stunt. It is apocraphylly noted that the Legislature of
>> > Mississippi once passed a law requiring pi to be exactly three. Trying
>> > to establish "gay marriage" -- changing the definition of a word -- by
>> > legislative or judicial fiat is equally stupid, and people react to
>> > that. They will continue to do so.
>>
>> I disagree that permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil marriage
>> changes the definition of the word marriage because I reject the idea
>> that marriage is defined by who is eligible. Instead, marriage ought to
>> be defined by its purpose in society.
>
>Hmmm. You posted, "...I reject the idea that (civil) marriage is
>defined by who is eligible"...and yet you've previously posted, "It is
>true that civil marriage and its benefits are not a Due Process right,
>that is the state can deny civil marriage or its benefits to all
>people." Message-ID:
><1164578027.126159.168...@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
>
>As you well know, in a multitude of ways, the majority of society has
>stated the definition of marriage AND its' "purpose in society".
No, in some elections the majority of people who voted chose to keep
marriage segregated, but many of those voters were lied to yb
religious bigots. And none actually voted on anything that stated any
purpose for marriage.
> You,
>like the the majority of pro-homosexual advocates,
As opposed to you anti-liberty bigots?
>"...The Equal Protection Clause "is not a license for courts to judge
>the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters�] choices."
>(http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)
Of course it is. The US Constitution overrides any and all local
elections. That conservatives are willing to trash the constitution
in order to defend bigotry is hardly new.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
thomas p.
Odd that nobody has yet cited a court case or a law that requires marriage
to serve any specific purpose. Furthermore use of the Courts part of the
"well-established
law and custom of the US and all other developed countries for that matter.
>
> "...The Equal Protection Clause "is not a license for courts to judge
> the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters'] choices."
> (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)
>
> "Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
> to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
> rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_sc/759341MAJ&invol=4
Perhaps it would be better to wait for the decisions of those who actually
have the authority to make them.
Pat Magroyne
wrote:
> In article
> <a1e1ddfd-d0f7-4538-b9f3-f0c4e5952...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
I find it more interesting that some people enjoy skydiving.
> To understand that puzzle, and perhaps solve it, one first has to see
> why one would expect it not to.
You're overthinking it, I believe. It simply has never been the case
that all human behavior leads to or enhances reproduction. Indeed,
much human behavior REDUCES the chances for reproduction.
Homosexuality is what it is, has always existed, always will exist,
and there's no real reason to figure out WHY it exists, any more than
there is reason to figure out WHY one's eyes are hazel (the cause of
my hazel eyes is genetic, but what is the REASON for my eyes to be
hazel rather than green?) Homosexuality quite obviously is not the
threat to humanity that some insist it is.
David Friedman
<848099c0-de7f-4d14...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Josh Rosenbluth <jrose...@comcast.net> wrote:
Even if the word is "relationship?"
"Marriage" is, for historical reason, an emotionally loaded term, a
symbol people care about, so having the state either define homosexual
relationships as marriages or define heterosexual relationships as
marriages and refuse to include homosexual ones, is putting a thumb on
the scale. Having the state treat both as contracts, and provide a
standard form that is usable for both, isn't.
David Friedman
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
My point was that, at this point, that is not the issue, since the fight
currently isn't over whether same sex couples can sign a contract having
the same effect as civil marriage but whether doing so means that they
are married. Symbol not substance.
For a longer discussion, see my old blog post on the subject, cited
earlier.
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2005/12/gay-marriage-both-sides-are-wr
ong.html
Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:
> In article
> <848099c0-de7f-4d14-a01c-dd1cb135f...@m20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
I agree.
> Having the state treat both as contracts, and provide a
> standard form that is usable for both, isn't.
The state is making the claim that the two type of relationships are
equal in the eyes of the state. That's putting a thumb on the scale.
Josh Rosenbluth
James A. Donald
> On Nov 28, 1:19 am, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> > The fact that homosexuality continues to exist is an interesting puzzle.
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:28:35 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
> I find it more interesting that some people enjoy skydiving.
The proportion of skydivers that successfully reproduce is undoubtedly
substantially higher than the proportion of homosexuals.
More generally, in the ancestral environment, those males that
prudently tested out taking risks probably reproduced substantially
more successfully than more cautious males, explaining the fact that
skydivers skew overwhelmingly male, and those females that skydive are
mostly accompanying their boyfriends.
Those few women that skydive without a boyfriend, are apt to be duoing
with a young handsome male instructor.
Pat Magroyne
> <patmagro...@null.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 1:19 am, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> > > The fact that homosexuality continues to exist is an interesting puzzle.
>
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 10:28:35 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
>
> > I find it more interesting that some people enjoy skydiving.
>
> The proportion of skydivers that successfully reproduce is undoubtedly
> substantially higher than the proportion of homosexuals.
>
> More generally, in the ancestral environment, those males that
> prudently tested out taking risks probably reproduced substantially
> more successfully than more cautious males,
I would think exactly the opposite. Those who put themselves in
danger more often are likely to have fewer offspring.
Take hunting, for example. Those who stayed behind would have had
more opportunity to reproduce, since the females usually didn't
participate in the hunt.
> explaining the fact that
> skydivers skew overwhelmingly male, and those females that skydive are
> mostly accompanying their boyfriends.
>
> Those few women that skydive without a boyfriend, are apt to be duoing
> with a young handsome male instructor.
Are they procreating while aloft? Or do they do that on the way down?
thomas p.
Obviously if they have the right to contract a civil marriage they are
married.
In those states and nations that allow same-sex marriage the couples in
question are married. I have no idea why you think there is any doubt that
being
married means being married. Very weird.
thomas p.
I am sorry, but you are not making the least bit of sense. In both cases
the
government is determining what is and what is not marriage.
David Friedman
"thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Marriage" is, for historical reason, an emotionally loaded term, a
> > symbol people care about, so having the state either define homosexual
> > relationships as marriages or define heterosexual relationships as
> > marriages and refuse to include homosexual ones, is putting a thumb on
> > the scale. Having the state treat both as contracts, and provide a
> > standard form that is usable for both, isn't.
>
> I am sorry, but you are not making the least bit of sense. In both cases
> the
> government is determining what is and what is not marriage.
If the government offers a standard partnership contract which is not
labeled "marriage" but fulfills the legal functions of current marriage
law, and individuals are left free to decide for themselves what couples
they consider married, the government is not determining what is or is
not marriage.
Pat Magroyne
wrote:
> In article <4b1184a7$0$36560$edfad...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Marriage" is, for historical reason, an emotionally loaded term, a
> > > symbol people care about, so having the state either define homosexual
> > > relationships as marriages or define heterosexual relationships as
> > > marriages and refuse to include homosexual ones, is putting a thumb on
> > > the scale. Having the state treat both as contracts, and provide a
> > > standard form that is usable for both, isn't.
>
> > I am sorry, but you are not making the least bit of sense. In both cases
> > the
> > government is determining what is and what is not marriage.
>
> If the government offers a standard partnership contract which is not
> labeled "marriage" but fulfills the legal functions of current marriage
> law, and individuals are left free to decide for themselves what couples
> they consider married, the government is not determining what is or is
> not marriage.
You've contradicted yourself by mentioning "current marriage law".
Laws are enacted by governments. Government decides what rights and
obligations are included in the marriage contract. No contract that
is not marriage is equivalent to marriage.
thomas p.
> In article <4b1184a7$0$36560$edfa...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> "thomas p." <gud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > "Marriage" is, for historical reason, an emotionally loaded term, a
>> > symbol people care about, so having the state either define homosexual
>> > relationships as marriages or define heterosexual relationships as
>> > marriages and refuse to include homosexual ones, is putting a thumb on
>> > the scale. Having the state treat both as contracts, and provide a
>> > standard form that is usable for both, isn't.
>>
>> I am sorry, but you are not making the least bit of sense. In both cases
>> the
>> government is determining what is and what is not marriage.
>
> If the government offers a standard partnership contract which is not
> labeled "marriage" but fulfills the legal functions of current marriage
> law, and individuals are left free to decide for themselves what couples
> they consider married, the government is not determining what is or is
> not marriage.
I see no possible reason to do anything so odd. The only reason there
would be for having some kind of contract that was not called
marriage would be an attempt to satisfy those who are against
same-sex marriage. If, however, a same-sex couple is free to choose the
contract called marriage, the entire point of having the two contracts would
be missing.
Josh Rosenbluth
> "David Friedman" <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> skrev i meddelelsennews:ddfr-805933.1...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <4b1184a7$0$36560$edfad...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> > "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > "Marriage" is, for historical reason, an emotionally loaded term, a
> >> > symbol people care about, so having the state either define homosexual
> >> > relationships as marriages or define heterosexual relationships as
> >> > marriages and refuse to include homosexual ones, is putting a thumb on
> >> > the scale. Having the state treat both as contracts, and provide a
> >> > standard form that is usable for both, isn't.
>
> >> I am sorry, but you are not making the least bit of sense. In both cases
> >> the
> >> government is determining what is and what is not marriage.
>
> > If the government offers a standard partnership contract which is not
> > labeled "marriage" but fulfills the legal functions of current marriage
> > law, and individuals are left free to decide for themselves what couples
> > they consider married, the government is not determining what is or is
> > not marriage.
>
> I see no possible reason to do anything so odd. The only reason there
> would be for having some kind of contract that was not called
> marriage would be an attempt to satisfy those who are against
> same-sex marriage. If, however, a same-sex couple is free to choose the
> contract called marriage, the entire point of having the two contracts would
> be missing.
He's not calling for two contracts. He is arguing that the government
stop using the word "marriage". All get "civil unions".
Josh Rosenbluth
James A. Donald
> > More generally, in the ancestral environment, those
> > males that prudently tested out taking risks
> > probably reproduced substantially more successfully
> > than more cautious males,
Pat Magroyne
> I would think exactly the opposite. Those who put
> themselves in danger more often are likely to have
> fewer offspring.
True for females, not for males, the expendable sex.
We don't have direct data on the relationship between
courage and reproductive success, but do we have direct
data on a closely related quality: ferocity and
reproductive success. Among the Yanomamo, males that
had personally killed another male had much greater
reproductive success than males that had not.
It is always the case that a relatively small proportion
of the males father the majority of offspring. A
willingness to take risks is likely to help get into
that minority.
A patriarchal society coerces and represses female
choice so that to get into that minority you have to be
pro-social, productive, brave, and loyal, deadly to the
patriarchy's enemies, gentle to its members, and
protective to its women and children. Absent that
coercion, it works better to resemble the thuggish image
that a rap singer attempts to project, which again
requires a willingness to take risks.
> Take hunting, for example. Those who stayed behind
> would have had more opportunity to reproduce, since
> the females usually didn't participate in the hunt.
Assume the hunting society is a patriarchy: Then the
hunter comes home, finds his woman up to mischief, kills
the offender with the assistance of his hunting pals and
drives the woman out to prostitute herself, which she
does by exchanging sex for the meat of various hunters.
Assume, as is commonly the case, that the hunting
society is male dominated but not patriarchal. Then, to
get screwed, you need to smack the shit out of a female.
This approach favors the bold. See any
blaxploitation movie for the details. In the ancestral
environment, a stick somewhat thicker than one's thumb
but thinner than one's wrist and slightly shorter than
one's own height is recommended. Note that the pimps
depicted in blaxploitation movies often have a stick
of these dimensions.
Assume, as is rarely the case, that the hunting society
is not patriarchal, nor overwhelmingly male dominated.
Women are protected by their sisters and brothers, which
case is often alleged to "matriarchal" by
anthropologists desperately searching for a matriarchal
society to believe in. In that case, see case 1 and
present the lady with a chunk of meat.
> > Those few women that skydive without a boyfriend,
> > are apt to be duoing with a young handsome male
> > instructor.
> Are they procreating while aloft? Or do they do that
> on the way down?
Possibly on the way down - certainly they seem to be
attempting it.
James A. Donald
> You've contradicted yourself by mentioning "current
> marriage law". Laws are enacted by governments.
Not really. Consider, for example, that Berkeley police
do not enforce the law against going around naked, yet
no one goes around naked.
Government law and government enforcement has a fairly
marginal effect on actual enforcement and actual
compliance. What happens if you shoplift from Walmart?
Walmart security meets you in the parking lot.
Legal centralism is the doctrine that government law and
government enforcement does in fact decide. This doctrine
is observed to be largely false.
The word "legalism" means several things, and one of the
things it refers to is an ideology or doctrine, in the
same sense as communism, fascism, liberalism, etc, that
doctrine being that government law and government
enforcement *should* decide, and that if to make this
requires drastic measures, then drastic measures should
be applied. In practice, the measures required usually
turn out to be so drastic that Legalism, as an ideology
and political doctrine, is highly unpopular.
James A. Donald
<jrose...@comcast.net> wrote:
> He's not calling for two contracts. He is arguing that the government
> stop using the word "marriage". All get "civil unions".
Churches, however, will do marriage. So if you want to get married,
go to church, and the minister, after marrying you, will also sign you
up with a civil contract.
dracc...@gmail.com
> thomas p. wrote:
> > "Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:hekp20$sit$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Ray Fischer wrote:
> >>> tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Dinesh D'Souza
>
> >>>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
> >>>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
> >>>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
> >>>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
> >>>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>
> >>>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
> >>> Nobody gives a ***. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
> >> Does nature count?
>
> > Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
>
> Yes, I do.
>
> Homosexuality is contrary to natural design. I presume that supersedes
> the biology argument.
Seeing as there is in fact no such thing natural design but only
nature your argument has no meaning whatsoever.
dracc...@gmail.com
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:59:16 -0500, Josh wrote:
> > David Friedman wrote:
> >> In article <4b0e9e8d$0$36570$edfad...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> >> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> If the law says that pi equals 3 exactly, nothing will change; using 3 in
> >>> calculations will not work.
> >>> The law did not create pi. It did create civil marriage. See the
> >>> difference?
>
> >> Unless you are restricting "civil marriage" to a legal status, that
> >> isn't true. Marriage is a very common human institution across a wide
> >> variety of cultures, so it isn't plausible to see it as a creation of
> >> the law, any more than the relation between parent and child is. In both
> >> cases the law makes rules to apply to a preexisting institution.
>
> > I concur. But is marriage (apart from the law) defined by who is
> > eligible, or rather what its purpose is? If it is the latter, then
> > during fairly recent times when the links between procreation as a
> > necessary condition for marriage have been lost (having nothing to do
> > with the appearance gayness as an identity), it would seem same-sex
> > marriages do not change the meaning of marriage.
>
> > Josh Rosenbluth
>
> You may continue to assert that until you are blue in the face and
> exhausted from the effort. It will remain untrue.
>
> "Marriage" is an arrangement composed of male(s) and female(s). That is
> what the word has meant since there was a word, and the concept existed
> before there were words for it. Dragging the red herring of "civil"
> (i.e., Government) into it is a way of attempting to confuse the issue
> that doesn't work.
>
> "Civil unions" -- a structure equivalent to marriage, which could then
> have easily been retrofitted to heterosexual couples so far as legal
> rights are concerned, leaving "marriage" as a cultural and religious
> concept -- were well on their way to reality, with even the grudging
> acceptance of the sort of snake-handling Christian sects I have almost
> as much contempt for as you do. Then "gays" decided that "marriage" was
> the only word that they would allow to apply to the situation. It
> doesn't work, it won't work, and any place you allow it to come to any
> sort of societal consent -- whether voting or otherwise -- it will
> continue to get shot down.
>
> You overreached. You simply don't have the power to compel pi to be
> three, and you won't get it, and in attempting to establish it you've
> moved yourselves backward from a civil rights standpoint.
>
> Regards,
> Ric
You seem to have a woefully low understanding and knowledge of
history. The idea that there should be no same-sex marriage is in fact
a rather new understanding. Historically such unions have always
existed and up until the late 19th Century even the Church itself had
a ritual for sanctifying the very same such. Most marriage were at the
earliest times arranged affairs mostly for the benefit of the family
and or the state. They were matters of political and social alliance
not of modern love. The modern concept of marriage has two portions
the civil and the religious it is the civil marriage that homosexuals
seek to equal their rights as first class and not second or even third
class members of society. You would deny them the very basic of
protections under the law because it does not fit your narrow minded
and mostly modern religious concept of marriage.
Ray Fischer
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>>> Dinesh D'Souza
>>>>>
>>>>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
>>>>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
>>>>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
>>>>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
>>>>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>>>>>
>>>>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
>>>> Nobody gives a ***. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
>>> Does nature count?
>>
>> Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
>
>Yes, I do.
>
>Homosexuality is contrary to natural design.
Nope.
> I presume that supersedes
>the biology argument.
You presume wrong.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David Friedman
<f581e06b-29e8-4b72...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"dracc...@gmail.com" <dracc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You seem to have a woefully low understanding and knowledge of
> history. The idea that there should be no same-sex marriage is in fact
> a rather new understanding. Historically such unions have always
> existed and up until the late 19th Century even the Church itself had
> a ritual for sanctifying the very same such.
This sounds like a vague third hand version of a highly controversial
claim made by John Boswell. His claim wasn't that such unions had always
existed and that the church sanctified them up until the late 19th
century, but that there is somewhat ambiguous evidence for the blessing
of same sex unions in the early Greek church. [_Same-Sex Unions in
Premodern Europe_. By John Boswell. New York: Villard Books, 1994]
In his earlier and better known _Christianity, Social Tolerance and
Homosexuality_, Boswell dates the rise of serious intolerance of
homoxuality in the Christian church to the 13th century, which is quite
a bit earlier than the late 19th century.
If Boswell isn't your source, perhaps you could tell us the basis for
your beliefs about the relevant history?
dracc...@gmail.com
> thomas p. wrote:
> > "Josh" <u...@nowhere.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:heorlh$glh$3...@josh.motzarella.org...> >>>news:ddfr-E6C8BA.2...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-media.com...
> >>>> In article <hemq76$mb...@josh.motzarella.org>, Josh <u...@nowhere.com>
> >>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>> David Friedman wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <4b0e9e8d$0$36570$edfad...@dtext01.news.tele.dk>,
> >>>>>> "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> If the law says that pi equals 3 exactly, nothing will change; using
> >>>>>>> 3 in
> >>>>>>> calculations will not work.
> >>>>>>> The law did not create pi. It did create civil marriage. See the
> >>>>>>> difference?
> >>>>>> Unless you are restricting "civil marriage" to a legal status, that
> >>>>>> isn't true. Marriage is a very common human institution across a wide
> >>>>>> variety of cultures, so it isn't plausible to see it as a creation of
> >>>>>> the law, any more than the relation between parent and child is. In
> >>>>>> both
> >>>>>> cases the law makes rules to apply to a preexisting institution.
> >>>>> I concur. But is marriage (apart from the law) defined by who is
> >>>>> eligible, or rather what its purpose is?
> >>>> a variety of somewhat related purposes. The details of what sort of
> >>>> partnership and who can form vary by custom, and would even if the law
> >>>> played no role.
>
> >>>>> If it is the latter, then
> >>>>> during fairly recent times when the links between procreation as a
> >>>>> necessary condition for marriage have been lost (having nothing to do
> >>>>> with the appearance gayness as an identity), it would seem same-sex
> >>>>> marriages do not change the meaning of marriage.
> >>>> of marriage will have different meanings to different people. Some of
> >>>> those are consistent with same sex marriage, some not.
>
> >>>> In my view, the problem with the whole issue of same sex marriage is
> >>>> that each side is trying to force the other to accept its symbolism, its
> >>>> view of what "A and B are married to each other" means.
> >>> Nobody is being forced to accept anything. It is purely a legal matter
> >>> determing who
> >>> can and cannot enter into a particular kind of contract called marriage.
> >>> Since this applies
> >>> only to civil marriage and requires nobody to approve or to participate,
> >>> where is the "force"?
> >> There isn't force on any individual. But there is force in that society
> >> as a whole is taking a stance even though a minority disapprove.
>
> > I ask again, who is being forced to do anything to approve of anything?
> > Has, for example, the Catholic Church been forced to approve of divorce
> > since
> > divorce and remarriage are both legal? As far as I know the Church still
> > disapproves
> > still insists that state granted divorce does not end a marriage.
>
> The Catholic Church is forced to accept that the state approves of
> something they disapprove of. Sure, it happens routinely, and it is
> acceptable and appropriate. But, it is a form of force all the same.
>
> Josh Rosenbluth
Josh, The Church not having the power that it once wielded to force
its will on the State and through the State on the People does not
equate to the Church being forced to accept anything whatsoever.
Should they ever again regain such power we would all be worse for it.
dracc...@gmail.com
The problem with this logic is that the Courts have repeatedly held
that the Rights of Homosexuals are violated when they are not allowed
the Right of Marriage. Thus it seems the anti-homosexual forces are
making the end run around the courts. Now as to the other matter it
was not that long ago that majority declared that blacks and whites
could marry as well, the Courts overruled the majority and extended
rights where the majority would deny them. Right now the Majority of
the Nation is Christian but they are quickly losing that as majority
would you have a new majority whomever they might become dictate their
will on Christians?
dracc...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article
> <f581e06b-29e8-4b72-b2ab-210bcef3c...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> "draccus...@gmail.com" <draccus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You seem to have a woefully low understanding and knowledge of
> > history. The idea that there should be no same-sex marriage is in fact
> > a rather new understanding. Historically such unions have always
> > existed and up until the late 19th Century even the Church itself had
> > a ritual for sanctifying the very same such.
>
> This sounds like a vague third hand version of a highly controversial
> claim made by John Boswell. His claim wasn't that such unions had always
> existed and that the church sanctified them up until the late 19th
> century, but that there is somewhat ambiguous evidence for the blessing
> of same sex unions in the early Greek church. [_Same-Sex Unions in
> Premodern Europe_. By John Boswell. New York: Villard Books, 1994]
>
> In his earlier and better known _Christianity, Social Tolerance and
> Homosexuality_, Boswell dates the rise of serious intolerance of
> homoxuality in the Christian church to the 13th century, which is quite
> a bit earlier than the late 19th century.
>
> If Boswell isn't your source, perhaps you could tell us the basis for
> your beliefs about the relevant history?
>
> --
> Author of
> _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
> Cambridge University Press.
It is not all that controversial among historians who look to bulk of
the evidence including the Churches own records. but hey you have
shown such scholarship here why don't we all just listen to you.
Boswell is a source for a lot of things but I like to do independent
research as well including simply asking an Historian for the Church.
David Friedman
<5b14ad00-c65b-4b4f...@r31g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
"dracc...@gmail.com" <dracc...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pure bluff. You have no source to back up your historical claims, even
though you are willing to accuse someone else of lack of knowledge for
not believing them.
Boswell was the scholar responsible for the claim you are wildly
distorting--if you have another source, tell us what it is.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
thomas p.
I did not see his post, but your response is pretty much what I would have
said.
I also thought it was funny that he apparently there was some kind of
conflict
between biology and nature - very strange.
thomas p.
Above he indicated that people would have a choice.
thomas p.
I see, so the only way one could choose the contract that said "marriage"
would be to choose a church wedding; thereby ending freedom of religion
and separation of church and state And, of course, the anti same-sex
marriage crownd would still not be satisfied, because same-sex couples
could still choose the marriage contract. You create several new problems,
and solve nothing.
still not be satisfied
Anonymous Remailer (austria)
In article <ddfr-A04387.0...@newsfarm.phx.highwinds-
media.com>
Regardless of who it was, evidently somebody wised up to the
disgusting nature of gays and decided enough was enough.
thomas p.
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 15:53:10 -0800 (PST), Pat Magroyne
>> You've contradicted yourself by mentioning "current
>> marriage law". Laws are enacted by governments.
>
> Not really. Consider, for example, that Berkeley police
> do not enforce the law against going around naked, yet
> no one goes around naked.
And those laws were enacted by the government.
>
> Government law and government enforcement has a fairly
> marginal effect on actual enforcement and actual
> compliance. What happens if you shoplift from Walmart?
> Walmart security meets you in the parking lot.
What relevance does the above have to the fact that
marriage laws are enacted by the government?
>
> Legal centralism is the doctrine that government law and
> government enforcement does in fact decide. This doctrine
> is observed to be largely false.
>
> The word "legalism" means several things, and one of the
> things it refers to is an ideology or doctrine, in the
> same sense as communism, fascism, liberalism, etc, that
> doctrine being that government law and government
> enforcement *should* decide, and that if to make this
> requires drastic measures, then drastic measures should
> be applied. In practice, the measures required usually
> turn out to be so drastic that Legalism, as an ideology
> and political doctrine, is highly unpopular.
More irrelevance.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> thomas p. wrote:
> > "Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:hekp20$sit$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Ray Fischer wrote:
> >>> tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Dinesh D'Souza
>
> >>>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays cannot
> >>>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
> >>>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that homosexuality
> >>>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
> >>>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>
> >>>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
> >>> Nobody gives a ***. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
> >> Does nature count?
>
> > Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
>
> basically it comes to a Darwinian argument that natural selection should
> act against homosexuality because of procreation.
>
Well, stupidity is also not Darwinian, yet it exists. So do various
genetic deceases.
Or maybe the species need a certain percentage of men to be effeminate
to perform some useful social function? [Like giving us good haircuts,
figure skating, or decorating homes. :-)]
Afterall, most other species have homosexuals too, right?
>
> My guess is one of three things are true: 1) there is another reason
> for selecting homosexuality that counters the procreation effect, 2) the
> model of natural selection requires adjustments to explain why
> homosexuality continues, or 3) we need to wait much, much longer to see
> homosexuality die out.
>
> Josh Rosenbluth
Ric Locke
As David says, put up or shut up.
Your assertion is simply a lie. I don't call you a liar; you're just
engaging in wishful thinking. The person who told you that is a liar,
and you shouldn't trust him or her with anything.
If there's some accessible parallel Universe where your assertion is
true, give us the cites. Tell us where such a claim appears. I don't
believe you. Prove it, dammit. (And no, it isn't my job to disprove your
assertion. In fact, it's proving a negative, which is impossible
regardless of which negative it is -- and trying to force me into that
position pisses me off and makes me less likely to support your real
civil rights concerns.)
Give the sources. If not, I withdraw my paragraph, above; you're a liar
and the truth is not in you.
Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
Because the law cannot compel an impossibility.
Pi is not three regardless of the Mississippi legislature, and it would
be a kind humanitarian gesture to exempt pregnant women and nursing
mothers from Gravity if it would work.
"Marriage" includes both male(s) and female(s). That's the definition of
the word, and word definitions are no more accessible to legislation
than physical laws.
Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
Got a suggestion: Let's repeal the Law of Gravity.
Gravity is, after all, clearly racist by modern standards -- rich white
people can fly whilst the poor minorities they oppress cannot, because
it costs money to fly if Gravity exists. Do away with it!
There are things Government can determine. Definitions of words are not
among those things.
Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
No, James is correct, if hyperbolic as usual.
"Legalism" is the theory that Government can change /anything/ by
passing laws -- by fiat enforced by goons with guns. You are a legalist.
It is a false notion. Government cannot repeal or modify the Law of
Gravity, create perpetual motion by fiat, or declare that wavelengths
from 600 to 700 nanometers are blue light, even if doing so would
constitute social justice.
Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
Thomas, there are things you cannot have because the Universe doesn't
work that way. The fact that it is in your perception "unjust" that this
is so doesn't change things in any way, and bitching at people who tell
you you can't have a perpetual motion machine or call the IR wavelengths
"blue" is childish petulance, not civil rights argument.
Regards,
Ric
Ric Locke
> Odd that nobody has yet cited a court case or a law that requires marriage
> to serve any specific purpose. Furthermore use of the Courts part of the
> "well-established
> law and custom of the US and all other developed countries for that matter.
>
>>
>> "...The Equal Protection Clause "is not a license for courts to judge
>> the wisdom, fairness, or logic of [the voters'] choices."
>> (http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/06/07/052604P.pdf)
>>
>> "Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
>> to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
>> rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."
>> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_sc/759341MAJ&invol=4
>
> Perhaps it would be better to wait for the decisions of those who actually
> have the authority to make them.
That would be a good idea, if you weren't so uniformly hostile to it.
The ones with "the authority to make [decisions about the Law] are the
voters, and voters have uniformly rejected "gay marriage" wherever it
was presented to them -- whereupon you bleat "it isn't fair" and demand
a rematch.
Sooner or later the patience will end.
Regards,
Ric
Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:
> On Nov 28, 8:27 am, Info Junkie <bondr...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
> > "Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage
> > to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental
> > rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing."http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_sc...
>
> The problem with this logic is that the Courts have repeatedly held
> that the Rights of Homosexuals are violated when they are not allowed
> the Right of Marriage. Thus it seems the anti-homosexual forces are
> making the end run around the courts.
It's been a split decision at the state court level, and the only "end-
run" around the courts have been through constitutional processes.
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
Yes. Is there a problem with that?
Josh Rosenbluth
Josh Rosenbluth
wrote:
> its will on the State and through the State on the People does not
> equate to the Church being forced to accept anything whatsoever.
> Should they ever again regain such power we would all be worse for it.
My argument isn't specifically about the Church. It's about majority
rule (and sometimes minority rights). It is a routine feature of our
republic that laws passed by the majority (or struck down by the
courts) force those who don't like the laws (court decisions) to
accept an official position of the state (as it represents society)
they don't want.
Josh Rosenbluth
Info Junkie
Name the US CourtS that have "repeatedly held" the allegedly "Rights
of Homosexuals are violated when they are not allowed the Right of
Marriage" that have not been overturned. FWIW, there is no such thing
as "Rights of Homosexuals" that should be capitalzed any more than
one would claim the exclusive "Rights of Nudists"
>Thus it seems the anti-homosexual forces are
> making the end run around the courts.
Utter nonsense. The majority are following their State Constitution
and DOMA. The pro-homosexual advocates are trying to get the law(s)
change by judical fiat, not legislatively as the constitution(s)
intended.
>Now as to the other matter it
> was not that long ago that majority declared that blacks and whites
> could marry as well, the Courts overruled the majority and extended
> rights where the majority would deny them.
Like many liberals (progressives), you've posted that old-worn-out
fallacy wrt marriage between blacks and whites. (sigh)
"A fundamental right must be objectively and deeply rooted in this
Nation's history and tradition. While the right to marry is well-
established, that right, without exception, has been limited to
opposite-sex unions. Cases striking down anti-miscegenation laws and
other marital restrictions considered those laws only in the context
of opposite-sex unions and affirmed marriage's purpose of promoting
procreation in the optimal environment for raising children. No
appellate court in this Nation has held that its state constitution
creates such a fundamental right. "
http://marriagelaw.cua.edu/Law/states/Washington%20State/Intervenor's%20Reply%20Brief.doc
(IJ) "...In lieu of a direct challenge to the well-established
societal norms (historical US customs and traditions) the proponents
instead attempt to steer away from the gay lifestyle in general by
narrowing (or limiting) the discussion
to individual topics such as re-defining "marriage" and "rights" and
try to cite their various "interpretations" of what one or two court
cases have ruled.
When such this diversionary tactic fails, some same sex marriage
proponents will invariably attack their opponents through a variety of
fallacies that include religion, slavery, or interracial
marriages...
Claiming otherwise irrational and usually found by those that focus on
short-term thinking, false assertions fallacious illogical rhetoric
and/or ad hominem" (Message-ID: <432d5129.4823...@news.ifx.net>)
>Right now the Majority of
> the Nation is Christian but they are quickly losing that as majority
> would you have a new majority whomever they might become dictate their
> will on Christians?- Hide quoted text -
The religion of Christianity was not part of my claims wrt marriage.
As to your claim "they are quickly losing...majority (status) in the
USA, according to whom?
thomas p.
On Nov 26, 7:32 am, Josh <u...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> thomas p. wrote:
> > "Peter Franks" <n...@none.com> skrev i meddelelsen
> >news:hekp20$sit$6...@news.eternal-september.org...
> >> Ray Fischer wrote:
> >>> tim jones <timjoes4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Dinesh D'Souza
>
> >>>> A new poll shows that a majority of Americans believe that gays
> >>>> cannot
> >>>> change their sexual orientation. This can be read in more than one
> >>>> way. But perhaps the most obvious interpretation is that
> >>>> homosexuality
> >>>> is biological or innate, and therefore a certain percentage of people
> >>>> in every society are genetically programmed to be gay.
>
> >>>> This view, I think, is simply wrong.
> >>> Nobody gives a ***. Biology counts. Uninformed beleifs do not.
> >> Does nature count?
>
> > Yes, go on. Did you have a point?
>
> He's made it before, and he expresses it in a hard-to-swallow way. But,
> basically it comes to a Darwinian argument that natural selection should
> act against homosexuality because of procreation.
>
As far as we know homosexuality is as old as our species, and our
species still exists and its numbers are still increasing; therefore
procreation has not been negatively affected, or, at the very least,
not to any degree that has visibly affected the reproductive
success of our species. As a matter of fact our very success
appears to be a much greater threat than the small percentage of
individuals who do not procreate.
In any event homosexuality exists, so it is natural. He seemed to be
implying
that it was not, which he confirmed in another post.
thomas p.
"Ric Locke" <warric...@gmail.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:1qajewpddyenv.w...@40tude.net...
Civil marriage is an abstract concept created by the law.
As such it is what the law says it is.
>
> Pi is not three regardless of the Mississippi legislature, and it would
> be a kind humanitarian gesture to exempt pregnant women and nursing
> mothers from Gravity if it would work.
Which is not analogous to civil marriage. Neither pi nor gravity are
pure inventions of the mind.
>
> "Marriage" includes both male(s) and female(s). That's the definition of
> the word, and word definitions are no more accessible to legislation
> than physical laws.
Legislation did not create physical laws, it did create civil marriage.
Civil marriage
would not exist at all if legislation had not brought it into being, as such
it has
always been defined by legislation unlike pi or gravity etc.
thomas p.
As I said in another response to you, civil marriage is not the result of
any universal
or physical law. It was created and defined by human legislation.
Legislation did
not create the laws of physics, so I agree that legislation would have no
affect on
them. I hope you now see that your analogy is not valid.